Messages in this thread | | | From | Coiby Xu <> | Date | Sat, 17 Oct 2020 22:05:41 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] HID: i2c-hid: add polling mode based on connected GPIO chip's pin status |
| |
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:06:14PM +0000, Barnabás Pőcze wrote: >Hi > >> [...] >> >> +static int get_gpio_pin_state(struct irq_desc *irq_desc) >> >> +{ >> >> + struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(&irq_desc->irq_data); >> >> + >> >> + return gc->get(gc, irq_desc->irq_data.hwirq); >> >> +} >> >> + >> >> +static bool interrupt_line_active(struct i2c_client *client) >> >> +{ >> >> + unsigned long trigger_type = irq_get_trigger_type(client->irq); >> >> + struct irq_desc *irq_desc = irq_to_desc(client->irq); >> >> + >> >> + /* >> >> + * According to Windows Precsiontion Touchpad's specs >> >> + * https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/component-guidelines/windows-precision-touchpad-device-bus-connectivity, >> >> + * GPIO Interrupt Assertion Leve could be either ActiveLow or >> >> + * ActiveHigh. >> >> + */ >> >> + if (trigger_type & IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW) >> >> + return !get_gpio_pin_state(irq_desc); >> >> + >> >> + return get_gpio_pin_state(irq_desc); >> >> +} >> > >> >Excuse my ignorance, but I think some kind of error handling regarding the return >> >value of `get_gpio_pin_state()` should be present here. >> > >> What kind of errors would you expect? It seems (struct gpio_chip *)->get >> only return 0 or 1. >> > > >I read the code of a couple gpio chips and - I may be wrong, but - it seems they >can return an arbitrary errno. > I thought all GPIO chip return 0 or 1 since !!val is returned. I find an example which could return negative value,
// drivers/gpio/gpio-wm8994.c static int wm8994_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) { struct wm8994_gpio *wm8994_gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip); struct wm8994 *wm8994 = wm8994_gpio->wm8994; int ret;
ret = wm8994_reg_read(wm8994, WM8994_GPIO_1 + offset); if (ret < 0) return ret;
if (ret & WM8994_GPN_LVL) return 1; else return 0; } > >> >> + >> >> +static int i2c_hid_polling_thread(void *i2c_hid) >> >> +{ >> >> + struct i2c_hid *ihid = i2c_hid; >> >> + struct i2c_client *client = ihid->client; >> >> + unsigned int polling_interval_idle; >> >> + >> >> + while (1) { >> >> + /* >> >> + * re-calculate polling_interval_idle >> >> + * so the module parameters polling_interval_idle_ms can be >> >> + * changed dynamically through sysfs as polling_interval_active_us >> >> + */ >> >> + polling_interval_idle = polling_interval_idle_ms * 1000; >> >> + if (test_bit(I2C_HID_READ_PENDING, &ihid->flags)) >> >> + usleep_range(50000, 100000); >> >> + >> >> + if (kthread_should_stop()) >> >> + break; >> >> + >> >> + while (interrupt_line_active(client)) { >> > >> >I realize it's quite unlikely, but can't this be a endless loop if data is coming >> >in at a high enough rate? Maybe the maximum number of iterations could be limited here? >> > >> If we find HID reports are constantly read and send to front-end >> application like libinput, won't it help expose the problem of the I2C >> HiD device? >> > > >I'm not sure I completely understand your point. The reason why I wrote what I wrote >is that this kthread could potentially could go on forever (since `kthread_should_stop()` >is not checked in the inner while loop) if the data is supplied at a high enough rate. >That's why I said, to avoid this problem, only allow a certain number of iterations >for the inner loop, to guarantee that the kthread can stop in any case. > I mean if "data is supplied at a high enough rate" does happen, this is an abnormal case and indicates a bug. So we shouldn't cover it up. We expect the user to report it to us. > >> >> + i2c_hid_get_input(ihid); >> >> + usleep_range(polling_interval_active_us, >> >> + polling_interval_active_us + 100); >> >> + } >> >> + >> >> + usleep_range(polling_interval_idle, >> >> + polling_interval_idle + 1000); >> >> + } >> >> + >> >> + do_exit(0); >> >> + return 0; >> >> +} >> [...] >> >Excuse my ignorance, but I do not understand why the following two changes are not enough: >> > >> >in `i2c_hid_suspend()`: >> > if (polling_mode == I2C_POLLING_DISABLED) >> > disable_irq(client->irq); >> > >> >in `i2c_hid_resume()`: >> > if (polling_mode == I2C_POLLING_DISABLED) >> > enable_irq(client->irq); >> > >> I think we shouldn't call enable/disable_irq_wake in polling mode >> where we don't set up irq. > >I think I now understand what you mean. I'm not sure, but it seems logical to me >that you can enable/disable irq wake regardless whether any irq handlers are >registered or not. Therefore, I figure it makes sense to take the safe path, >and don't touch irq wake when polling, just as you did. >
Thank you for offering your understandings on this patch. When I'm going to submit next version, I will add a "Signed-off-by" tag with your name and email, does it look good to you? > >> [...] > > >Regards, >Barnabás Pőcze
-- Best regards, Coiby
| |